ML16078A313: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 August 19, 2016 MEMORANDUM TO: | {{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 August 19, 2016 MEMORANDUM TO: | ||
Director of Nuclear Regulatory Research | William M. Dean, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: | ||
Michael F. Weber | |||
/RA/ | |||
Director of Nuclear Regulatory Research | |||
==SUBJECT:== | ==SUBJECT:== | ||
TECHNICAL SAFETY ANALYSIS OF PRM-50-93/95, PETITION FOR RULEMAKING ON 10 CFR 50.46 In a user need memorandum dated April 26, 2010, Eric Leeds requested that RES prepare a technical safety analysis of the subject PRM and recommendations for its resolution. An interoffice working group was formed to evaluate the PRM. The working group consisted of the following staff members: | TECHNICAL SAFETY ANALYSIS OF PRM-50-93/95, PETITION FOR RULEMAKING ON 10 CFR 50.46 In a user need memorandum dated April 26, 2010, Eric Leeds requested that RES prepare a technical safety analysis of the subject PRM and recommendations for its resolution. An interoffice working group was formed to evaluate the PRM. The working group consisted of the following staff members: | ||
Name | Name Office/Division Dan Doyle NRR/DPR Jim Hickey NRR/DSS Robert Beaton NRR/DSS Steve Bajorek RES/DSA Harold Scott RES/DSA John McKirgan NRO/DSRA Geary Mizuno OGC Tim Collins NRR/DSS Ralph Landry NRO/DSRA Christian Leatherbury ADM/RADB The enclosed report is the staffs analysis of the petitions technical issues. In order to keep the public informed during the staffs review of the issues in this petition, the staff provided four draft interim review reports. Two additional interim reports have been developed to support the enclosed report. These six draft interim review reports were intended to provide an initial draft response and enable the staff to address significant safety issues rapidly had any been identified. These draft interim review reports contain additional details and formed the bases for the final staff positions described in the enclosed summary report. | ||
We understand that this report will support a paper to the Commission and a Federal Register Notice regarding the disposition of PRM-50-93/95. Previously, in working group meetings, the division director alignment meeting, and the six draft interim evaluations, RES and other work group representatives provided information to support the denial of the petition. The enclosed report provides additional information to support a denial. Additionally, RES does not believe that the issues raised in this report affect the ongoing 10 CFR 50.46c (Emergency Core Cooling System Acceptance Criteria) rulemaking. | We understand that this report will support a paper to the Commission and a Federal Register Notice regarding the disposition of PRM-50-93/95. Previously, in working group meetings, the division director alignment meeting, and the six draft interim evaluations, RES and other work group representatives provided information to support the denial of the petition. The enclosed report provides additional information to support a denial. Additionally, RES does not believe that the issues raised in this report affect the ongoing 10 CFR 50.46c (Emergency Core Cooling System Acceptance Criteria) rulemaking. | ||
RES has established an online quality survey to collect feedback from user offices on the usefulness of RES products and services. This survey can be found online at the hyperlink: | RES has established an online quality survey to collect feedback from user offices on the usefulness of RES products and services. This survey can be found online at the hyperlink: | ||
http://www.internal.nrc.gov/RES/now/res-product-survey/index.html. I would appreciate the responsible manager or supervisor completing this shortabout 5 minutessurvey within the next 10 working days to present your offices views of the delivered RES product. | http://www.internal.nrc.gov/RES/now/res-product-survey/index.html. I would appreciate the responsible manager or supervisor completing this shortabout 5 minutessurvey within the next 10 working days to present your offices views of the delivered RES product. | ||
If you have any questions, please contact me (415-1902), Mr. Michael J. Case (415-2508), or Dr. Steve Bajorek (415-2345). | |||
Enclosure As stated | Enclosure As stated | ||
ML16078A310 OFFICE RES/DSA | ML16078A310 OFFICE RES/DSA RES/DSA BC: RES/DSA D:RES/DSDA D:RES NAME K. Halvey Gibson S. Bajorek S. Elkins M. Case M. Weber DATE 03/21/16 4/15/16 4/6/16 8/4/16 8/19/16}} | ||
Latest revision as of 02:21, 10 January 2025
| ML16078A313 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/19/2016 |
| From: | Weber M Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research |
| To: | Bill Dean Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Halvey-Gibson K | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16078A310 | List: |
| References | |
| PRM-50-93, PRM-50-95 | |
| Download: ML16078A313 (3) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 August 19, 2016 MEMORANDUM TO:
William M. Dean, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Michael F. Weber
/RA/
Director of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
TECHNICAL SAFETY ANALYSIS OF PRM-50-93/95, PETITION FOR RULEMAKING ON 10 CFR 50.46 In a user need memorandum dated April 26, 2010, Eric Leeds requested that RES prepare a technical safety analysis of the subject PRM and recommendations for its resolution. An interoffice working group was formed to evaluate the PRM. The working group consisted of the following staff members:
Name Office/Division Dan Doyle NRR/DPR Jim Hickey NRR/DSS Robert Beaton NRR/DSS Steve Bajorek RES/DSA Harold Scott RES/DSA John McKirgan NRO/DSRA Geary Mizuno OGC Tim Collins NRR/DSS Ralph Landry NRO/DSRA Christian Leatherbury ADM/RADB The enclosed report is the staffs analysis of the petitions technical issues. In order to keep the public informed during the staffs review of the issues in this petition, the staff provided four draft interim review reports. Two additional interim reports have been developed to support the enclosed report. These six draft interim review reports were intended to provide an initial draft response and enable the staff to address significant safety issues rapidly had any been identified. These draft interim review reports contain additional details and formed the bases for the final staff positions described in the enclosed summary report.
We understand that this report will support a paper to the Commission and a Federal Register Notice regarding the disposition of PRM-50-93/95. Previously, in working group meetings, the division director alignment meeting, and the six draft interim evaluations, RES and other work group representatives provided information to support the denial of the petition. The enclosed report provides additional information to support a denial. Additionally, RES does not believe that the issues raised in this report affect the ongoing 10 CFR 50.46c (Emergency Core Cooling System Acceptance Criteria) rulemaking.
RES has established an online quality survey to collect feedback from user offices on the usefulness of RES products and services. This survey can be found online at the hyperlink:
http://www.internal.nrc.gov/RES/now/res-product-survey/index.html. I would appreciate the responsible manager or supervisor completing this shortabout 5 minutessurvey within the next 10 working days to present your offices views of the delivered RES product.
If you have any questions, please contact me (415-1902), Mr. Michael J. Case (415-2508), or Dr. Steve Bajorek (415-2345).
Enclosure As stated
ML16078A310 OFFICE RES/DSA RES/DSA BC: RES/DSA D:RES/DSDA D:RES NAME K. Halvey Gibson S. Bajorek S. Elkins M. Case M. Weber DATE 03/21/16 4/15/16 4/6/16 8/4/16 8/19/16